Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-09-01

parties into similar matters. In the pursuit Of
knowledge it cannot compel the production Of
the private books and papers Of the citizen for
its inspection except in the progress of judicial
proceedings, or in suits Instituted for that pur
, pose, and in both cases only upon nverments
that its rights are in some way dependent for
papers contain.
THE RIGHTS OF CITIZEN
Of all the rights of the citizen few are of
greater importance more essential to his peace
and happiness than the right of personal secur-
ity and that involves not merely protection of
his person from assault, but exemption of mis-
private affairs. books and papers from the in
! spection and scrutiny of others. without the
enjoyment OF this right all other rights would
lose halt their value. The law provides for the
compulsory production, in the progress of Judi
cial proceedings or by direct suit for that pnr-
pose, OF such documents as affect the interest of
others, and also in certain cases for the seizure
OF eliminating papers necessary for the prosecu-
ton OF Offenders against public Justice and only
| in one OF these ways can they be obtained and
their contents made known agsinst the will of
| the owners.
In the recent case of Boyd Vs. The United
States ll6 Y: S. 6l6I, the Supreme Court held
| that provision of a law OF Congress which au-
thoriZed a Court OF the United States in revenue
cases, on motion of the Government attorney to
| require the defendant or claimant to produce in
Court his private books, invoices, and papers or
that the allegations of the attorney respecting
J them should be taken as confessed was uncon-
stitutiOnal aud void as applied to suits for pen
aties or to establish a forfeiture of the party's
| goods The Court, speaking by Justice Bradley
said any compulsory discovery BY extortng
| the party oath. or compelling the production
| of his private books and papers 10 convict him
OF CRIME OF 70 iQrIeil his property is contrary to
| the principles OF a free government, II is 40
horrent 10 the instincts of an Englishnan it is
( abhorrent to the instincts of an American Il
may suit the purpose of Il despotic power but it
cannot aolde the pure atmosphere Of political
! liberty and personal freedom The Language
| thus used lad reference il ia IN
pulsory production OF papers as foundation for
criminal proceedings, but il Is applicable to any
such production of the private books and papers
| OF 8 party otherwise than in the course OF Judi
ciel proceedings or Il direct suit for that pur-
| pose 1t Is the forcible intrusion into and COM
pulsory exposure OF ones private affairs and pa
pers. without judicial process, or in the course
OF JudlclaI proceedings which is contrary to the
! principles of free government, and is abhor
| rent TO the instincts of Englishrnen and amer
| leans.
In his opinion in the celebrated case of En-
| tick VS.. Darlington, and Three Other King s
Messengers, reported at length in 10 Howell
state Trials, lO29, Lord Camden said Papers
are the owners goods and chattels: they are
MS dearest property. and are 50 far from endur
ing seizure, that they viii hardly bear inspec-
ton; and though the eye cannot by the laws
OF England be guilty of trespasS yet where
papers are removed and carried away the secret
nature OF those goods will be an aggravation Of
the tTespess, and demand more considerable
damages in that respect Where is the written
can safely answer, there is none and, there
fore, 1t is too much for us, without such authori-
~ to pronounce practice legal which would
be subversive OF all the comforts of society"
Compulsory process to produce such papers
not in judicial proceeding, but before Com
mission OF Inquiry, is as subversiye of all the
comforts OF society" as their seizure under the
general warrant condemned in that case The
principles laid down in the opinion of Lord
Camden, said the Supreme Cour. of the United
states, AFFECT the very essence Of constitutional
hoy fttrfh nr n
| the concrete form of the case then before the
Court with its sdventitious circumstances; they
apply TO all invasions on the part of the Gov
eminent and its employees of the sauetty of
| man s home and the priyacies of life"
No POWER TO INQUIRE INTO PRIVATE AFFAIRS.
In kilbourn VS.. Thompson 1l3 q. s., 1851 we
have a decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, that neither house of Congress
vate affairs ofthe citizen that is 10 compel ex-
poSure Of such affairs. That case was this: The
firm of Jay Cooke & Co were debtors OF the United
states, and 1t was alleged that they we're inter
ested IN real estate pool" in the city of
Washington, and that the trustees oftheir estate
and effects had made a settlement of their inter
ests with the associates CT the firm to the disad-
vantage and loss OF numerous creditors, includ-
ing the Government of the United States The
House of Representatives, by a resolution recit-
ing these facts. authorized the Speaker TO APP
point committee of five TO inquire into the
| matter aud history of said real estate pool &"
and the character of the settlement with the
amount OF the property involved in which Jay
Cooke Co. were interested, and the amount
paid. or To be paid, in said settlement, with
power to send FOR persons and papers, and report
TO the House. The committee was ap-
pointed and organized. and proceeded 10
make the inquiry directed. A subpoena
was issued to one kllbouTn, commanding him
| TO appear before the committee to testify and be
examined touching the matters TO be inquired
into, and to bring with him certain designated
records. papers and maps relating TO the in
| quiry. kilbourn appeared before the committee
and was asked TO state the names of the five
members of the real state pool and where each
resided, and he refused TO answer the question
or 10 produce the books which had been re-
| qlllred. The committee reported tue matter to
the House. and il ordered the Speaker to issue
! his warrant directed to the Sergeant-4t-Arms TO
arrest kllbourn and bring MIN before the bar of
the House 70 answer why he should not be pun
lshed Tor CONTEMPT TN being brought before
the House, kilbou'n persisted in his refusal to
answer the question and to produce the books
and papers required. He was thereupon held
to be IN contempt and committed to the custody
OF the sergeant Arms until he should signify
his Willingness to appear before the committee
and answer the question and obey the subpoena
duces tecttm and 1t was ordered that in the
meantime the Sergeant at-A rms should cause
him TO be confines in the common Jail
of the District of Columbia He was
accordingly confined in that Jail for
forty five days wnen he was re ease{l on hsfass
corpus by the Chief Justice of the supreme Count
of the District OF Columbia. Upon his reless G.
he sued the speaker Of the House the members
OF the committee, aud the Sergeaut-at-Armsf for
MS forclble arrest and confinement. The de
fendant pleaded the facts recited, to which pleas
the Plaintiff demurred The demurrer was over
ruled and Judgment ordered for the defendants.
On writ OF error to the Supreme Court the judg
ment was affirmed as to all the defen iants ex-
cept the Sergeant Arms. They being mem
bers OF the House were he'd TO be pro- ected
from prosecution for their action But as to
| Thompson the judgment was reversed and the
case remanded for further proceedings In the
supreme Court the case received great consider
alton, and II was held that the suhject-matter of
| the investigation was judicial and not legis-
| iatlye and that there was no power in Congress
or III either House on the allegation that an in
! solvent debtor OF the United States was inter
ested IN private business partnership to in
vestigate the affairs of that partnership and
consequently, no authority 70 compel a Witne IS
| 70 te stify on the subject.
The House of Representatives" said the
Court, has the sole right TO impeach officers of
| the Government, and the Senate 70 try them
| We're the question of such impeachment before
either body acting in its appropriate sphere on
That SUBJECT we see no reason to doubt the right
| 10 compel the attendance of witnesses and their
answer to proper questions in the same manner
! and by the use OF the same means that Courts of
justice can in Ike casas Whether the power of
punishment i'll either House by fine or iinprison-
ment goes beyond thus or not we are sure that
no person can be punished for contumaey as
witness before either House, unless his testi
mony is required in a matter into which that
! House has jurisdiction to inquire, and we feel
equally sure that neither of these bodies pos
J nSbSts tilt BeueId4 power OF making inquiry INTO
the private affairs of the citizen.'T And again:
. the investigation which the committee was
| directed to make was judicial in its character
and could only be properly and successfully
made by Court of justice, and if it related
| to a matter wherein relief or redress could be
| had only by a judicial proceeding, we do not
after VIII It has been said, deem it necessary to
discuss the proposition that the power attempted
to be exercised was one conf lied by the Const-
tuition to the judicial, and not the Legislative
1 Department of the Government. We think it
equally clear that the power asserted is Judi
cial, and not legislative" And again: THE
! resolution adopted as a sequence of the pream-
Bile contains no hint of any intention of final &C
ton by Congress on the subject In all the ar
gument on the case no suggestion has been
made OF what the House of Representatives or
I the Congress could have done in the way OF
remedytng the wrong or securing the creditors
! OF Jay Cooke & Co, or even the United States.
I Was 1t TO be simply fruiteSs investigation into
| the personal affairs of Individuals If so, the
House OF Representatives had no power or
/ authority in the matter more than anv other
| Ruual 0her of eypptlevnaD Oh fnr ba